On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Jochen Friedrich,
In message 1274031318-22876-1-git-send-email-jochen@scram.de you wrote:
similar to 274737e5eb25b2bcd3af3a96da923effd543284f
This patch changes get_timer() for sa1100 to return the time since 'base' instead of the time since the counter was at zero.
Symptom seen is flash timeout errors when erasing or programming a sector using the common cfi flash code.
Signed-off-by: Jochen Friedrich jochen@scram.de
arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c b/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c index 0207501..aea90ab 100644 --- a/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/sa1100/timer.c @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ void reset_timer (void)
ulong get_timer (ulong base) {
- return get_timer_masked ();
- return get_timer_masked () - base;
This patch is wrong. The get_timer() code is as it was designed to be. If it is causing problems, then the caller must be fixed.
Hmmm. I put the same patch in a long time ago for imx for the same reason. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/45922 Looking at some other arm timer implementations they do it the same way.
I see the cfi_flash code now has reset_timer calls sprinkled through it that should make the base offset functionality in the timer mostly a nop (assuming it's implemented). Maybe the OP has old cfi_flash code?